Is it worth to buy a PS5 today?

[Jelt]

Hi guys, im wondering if its worth to buy a ps5 now or just wait for the pro, im asking because now i have the money but the internet says that is possible for a pro version to be release soon, how soon you guys think it will be ?, because i want a gpu upgrade if i dont buy the ps5, im still deciding which one to choose (4070ti or amd 7900xt i think ), any recommendations will be appreciated 

[tkitch]

that's up to you.  
Sony hasn't announced it yet, so you have to decide for yourself if you want to wait an unknown amount of time, or if you want to get a console now?

 

[dizmo]

If there's no actual leaks (pictures, game studio files saying they're making games for it, etc) then I wouldn't bother waiting.
You also have to take into account that it will likely be a much more costly device.

You can wait forever waiting for the next great thing; it's always around the corner.

 

As for your upgrade, do you actually need a 4070Ti? The 4060Ti is likely going to be a very capable card.

 

I'd just buy now.

[YoungBlade]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

As for your upgrade, do you actually need a 4070Ti? The 4060Ti is likely going to be a very capable card.

The 4060Ti is only going to have 8GB of VRAM, meaning it will not be able to take advantage of its full GPU potential in newer titles. GPUs like the 3070 are already starting to suffer even at 1080p in games like Hogwarts Legacy, The Last of Us, Forspoken, and other recently released games due to the 8GB VRAM buffer. I wouldn't get any GPU faster than a 3060Ti with just 8GB of VRAM in 2023 unless you get a steep discount on it - which will not be the case for the 4060Ti, unless Nvidia has actually turned things around and stopped screwing over their customers from a value perspective.

[jaslion]

13 minutes ago, Jelt said:

Hi guys, im wondering if its worth to buy a ps5 now or just wait for the pro, im asking because now i have the money but the internet says that is possible for a pro version to be release soon, how soon you guys think it will be ?, because i want a gpu upgrade if i dont buy the ps5, im still deciding which one to choose (4070ti or amd 7900xt i think ), any recommendations will be appreciated 

Basically the question is:

 

Do you want to play ps5 exclusives now. Or in 2-3 years when they come to pc.

 

 

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, YoungBlade said:

The 4060Ti is only going to have 8GB of VRAM, meaning it will not be able to take advantage of its full GPU potential in newer titles. GPUs like the 3070 are already starting to suffer even at 1080p in games like Hogwarts Legacy, The Last of Us, Forspoken, and other recently released games due to the 8GB VRAM buffer. I wouldn't get any GPU faster than a 3060Ti with just 8GB of VRAM in 2023 unless you get a steep discount on it - which will not be the case for the 4060Ti, unless Nvidia has actually turned things around and stopped screwing over their customers from a value perspective.

I'll wait to see what happens when it comes out

Just now, jaslion said:

Basically the question is:

 

Do you want to play ps5 exclusives now. Or in 2-3 years when they come to pc.

Haha, he might have friends that play on the PS for games that aren't cross platform.

If I really wanted to play an exclusive I'd probably just buy the console rather than waiting years to play it.

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

If I really wanted to play an exclusive I'd probably just buy the console rather than waiting years to play it.

Same with all the game stores. I see a trailer of a game that seems fun, see its not on the platform I'm on and then kinda forget about it.

 

When it then eventually comes around I go like " Oh right that cool game I lookef at a while ago" and purchase it if I still feel like it :p.

 

So my super secret lifehack is: forget about it till it appears again in my recommended

[Count Lustig]

11 minutes ago, dizmo said:

You also have to take into account that it will likely be a much more costly device.

You can wait forever waiting for the next great thing; it's always around the corner.

 

My thoughts as well. There's always something better on the way. You want it, and you can afford it? Just buy it!

 

[Jelt]

to be honest i want to play bloodborne, demon souls, GOW  etc. But also i want to play games on pc on 1080 max settings currently i have a 3060 12gb but for games like forza horizon 5 , hogwarts and rdr2 it struggles having like 40-55 sometimes 60ish fps on 1080 and i have a 2k monitor but i never play on 2k because of my gpu 
i have a ryzen 5 5600x and 32gb 3200 

[jaslion]

3 minutes ago, Jelt said:

to be honest i want to play bloodborne, demon souls, GOW  etc. But also i want to play games on pc on 1080 max settings currently i have a 3060 12gb but for games like forza horizon 5 , hogwarts and rdr2 it struggles having like 40-55 sometimes 60ish fps on 1080 and i have a 2k monitor but i never play on 2k because of my gpu 
i have a ryzen 5 5600x and 32gb 3200 

God of war is on pc. Bloodborne is the only one thats unlikelt to come over.

 

Keep in mind its a "1080p" "30fps" locked ps4 game that doesnt play better on ps5.

 

Also max settings is bs btw. There is usually no visual difference for a massive performance impact.

 

Hogwarts is a badly optimized game on all platforms so it running bad is normal.

 

red dead 2 on max yeah that poor 3060 is not havin a good time. 1 step down and easy 70fps+

 

Forza same story the max settings add crazy amounts of aa basically meaning you are running it at like 4k+

 

 

[TetraSky]

In 2020, I sold my regular switch expecting a Switch Pro amid rumors and shit.

It's 2023 and there's still nothing on it.

For now, the only rumor I hear about a PS5 pro, is holiday 2024

https://gamerant.com/ps5-pro-console-release-date-when-2024/

Whether or not that's true or BS, you be the judge.

 

If you care enough about wanting the console now, go for it. Otherwise you'll find yourself always waiting.

[SydneyAngel]

The Pro version will only be good if they support older games. Current games that are not hitting 60 will hit 60 but thats it. At this stage just get a best 4k tv like CX or C2 C3 and get  4090. If you like trophys and the PS eco system then grab one. I think holding out for tomorrow is kinda a waste because who knows what can happen tomorrow. Oh yea dont listen  to the internet do what you want. 

[starsmine]

Yea?

Rumors of a pro coming out soon have been around since the gen started. Even if it does. It still costs more. 

Rumors of a ps5 pro dont even make sense. if one came out today with rdna3 navi 32 derivitive that does not even exist yet. OH BOY 20-30% faster gpu.... literally who the fuck cares. Cool I get 72 fps rather then 60. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 4/10/2023 at 12:18 PM, Jelt said:

to be honest i want to play bloodborne, demon souls, GOW  etc. But also i want to play games on pc on 1080 max settings currently i have a 3060 12gb but for games like forza horizon 5 , hogwarts and rdr2 it struggles having like 40-55 sometimes 60ish fps on 1080 and i have a 2k monitor but i never play on 2k because of my gpu 
i have a ryzen 5 5600x and 32gb 3200 

Ultra settings suck; high looks just as good the vast majority of the time and doesn't tank your performance the way ultra does. Ultra settings are for if you're playing a really old game that your hardware is major overkill for so who gives a shit since it'll run 60 fps either way. RTX 3060 is perfectly fine for 1080p high. There is no way a 3060 can't run RDR2 at 1080p60. I played through RDR2 on Hardware Unboxed's optimized settings on a 1660 Super and had no problem running 1080p60. I'd be mildly surprised if you couldn't run 1440p60 cleanly using Hardware Unboxed's optimized settings for RDR2 on a 3060 12GB. You'd certainly be able to with DLSS Quality or DLSS Ultra Quality at 1440p. But especially if you're fine playing 1080p 60fps there is no reason to upgrade from a 3060.

 

Now if you want to play 1440p the 7900 XT would be nice as hell, though I'd probably only spend that much for 1440p144 fps gaming. I'd probably be looking at an RX 6800 or RX 6800 XT for a 1440p60 gaming card that should age pretty well. Hell the 6800XT is good for 1440p144 right now. 7900 XT is about 33% faster than the 6800 XT at 4k and 30% faster at 1440p so any less than $600 for a 6800 XT and you're doing better on price to performance with it.

 

If you want to play PS5 exclusives at launch just get a PS5 now. PS5 Pro doesn't make much sense IMO and the rumor seems far less credible than the ones we kept hearing on Bloomberg.com about the Switch Pro ever since 2017 that never came to fruition. MVG makes a good argument that it's unlikely we see a PS5 Pro.

 

 

In the very unlikely event we ever see a PS5 Pro it'll just be some overpriced crap to run games with raytracing turned up. Personally I'd say who gives a shit? The PS5 as it is is a very capable 1440p gaming system with a gpu around 6600 XT level power with more VRAM and also with usually much better optimization on its exclusives than you'll ever see once they hit PC (see The Last of Us Part 1 for example).

 

Also Bloodborne is amazing, probably my favorite game made this century. Gotta caution that not only is it 1080p 30fps though; it's also not a particularly steady 30 fps and has some real frame pacing issues. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 4/10/2023 at 12:53 PM, TetraSky said:

In 2020, I sold my regular switch expecting a Switch Pro amid rumors and shit.

It's 2023 and there's still nothing on it.

For now, the only rumor I hear about a PS5 pro, is holiday 2024

https://gamerant.com/ps5-pro-console-release-date-when-2024/

Whether or not that's true or BS, you be the judge.

 

If you care enough about wanting the console now, go for it. Otherwise you'll find yourself always waiting.

Ouch. At least there was precedent to believe there would be a Switch Pro since Nintendo loves mid gen upgrades on their handhelds, such as the New 3DS upgrading the dual core cpu to a quad core. And considering the Switch struggled hugely just doing 1080p30 in games like Hyrule Warriors Age of Calamity and even Links Awakening Remastered. What's going to suck is the next Nintendo system will probably make you double dip with light remasters if you want to play your old Switch games on it.

[Ertman]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:23 AM, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Ouch. At least there was precedent to believe there would be a Switch Pro since Nintendo loves mid gen upgrades on their handhelds, such as the New 3DS upgrading the dual core cpu to a quad core. And considering the Switch struggled hugely just doing 1080p30 in games like Hyrule Warriors Age of Calamity and even Links Awakening Remastered. What's going to suck is the next Nintendo system will probably make you double dip with light remasters if you want to play your old Switch games on it.

Not heard of a PS4 Pro? Sony at least had precedent. The switch is a hybrid model, does it upgrade like the regular console or does it upgrade like a handheld. If regular console, Nintendo has not done a "Pro" version before. If like a handheld, then maybe, it's complicated.

[ImWilly]

There is still no rumor about PS5 Pro, and seeing that even XBOX couldn't catch up with PS5 performance, I doubt that Sony will release the Pro version as there is no pressure from competition (not in a few years at least)

 

So if you really want to buy PS5, then go for it.

If not, you will always be in waiting for something that will never come

[Mark Kaine]

On 5/6/2023 at 11:14 AM, Ertman said:

Not heard of a PS4 Pro? Sony at least had precedent. The switch is a hybrid model, does it upgrade like the regular console or does it upgrade like a handheld. If regular console, Nintendo has not done a "Pro" version before. If like a handheld, then maybe, it's complicated.

pro was an exception though because the original ps4 very much underperformed (technically)  and that exception didn't sit well with a lot of playstation fans... something Sony and probably other manufacturers will want to avoid repeating if possible. 

 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 5/31/2023 at 8:56 AM, Mark Kaine said:

pro was an exception though because the original ps4 very much underperformed (technically)  and that exception didn't sit well with a lot of playstation fans... something Sony and probably other manufacturers will want to avoid repeating if possible. 

 

 

Sony was super conservative with PS4 because the PS3 nearly bankrupted them. I think PS4 Pro probably had more to do with 4k TVs becoming affordable and Sony, being a TV company, probably seeing a PS4 Pro as a way to sell people new TVs too. For XBox though they definitely needed to catch up to Sony, since games that ran 1080p30 on base PS4 were usually 900p30 on base XBox One due to them cheaping out even further than Sony on gpu, as Microsoft originally envisioned the XBox One as more like an HTPC with gaming a secondary focus.

[Ertman]

9 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Sony was super conservative with PS4 because the PS3 nearly bankrupted them. I think PS4 Pro probably had more to do with 4k TVs becoming affordable and Sony, being a TV company, probably seeing a PS4 Pro as a way to sell people new TVs too. For XBox though they definitely needed to catch up to Sony, since games that ran 1080p30 on base PS4 were usually 900p30 on base XBox One due to them cheaping out even further than Sony on gpu, as Microsoft originally envisioned the XBox One as more like an HTPC with gaming a secondary focus.

The PS4 was objectively the fastest console at launch. I don’t necessarily agree with the 4K tv market being the the reason, it think it was a variable though.

 

MS did “cheap out” a bit, but Sony didn’t. A lot of it had to do with power and budget constraints. People forget that even the lowly launch consoles of the PS4 and the One could easily outperform similarly priced computers. Sourcing separate CPUs and GPUs wasn’t fiscally reasonable, and combining that with the power requirement meant they had to go with a SOC. Wasn’t a lot of options out there at the time that could keep up with modern gaming. AMD had ok gpus but their CPUs were power hungry and underperformed. Intel had great CPUs but garbage GPUs. Nvidia had no real cpu but a good gpu. Both companies had to make compromises without resorting to doubling the price of the console or using a 500+watt power supplies. They ended up going with a jaguar based cpu instead of fx based chip, and a mid tiered GPU.

On 5/31/2023 at 9:56 AM, Mark Kaine said:

pro was an exception though because the original ps4 very much underperformed (technically)  and that exception didn't sit well with a lot of playstation fans... something Sony and probably other manufacturers will want to avoid repeating if possible. 

 

 

Not true. People have been clamouring for a pro model of the PS5 since the refresh. Why? I have no idea, it’s not worth it to me.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, Ertman said:

The PS4 was objectively the fastest console at launch. I don’t necessarily agree with the 4K tv market being the the reason, it think it was a variable though.

 

MS did “cheap out” a bit, but Sony didn’t. A lot of it had to do with power and budget constraints. People forget that even the lowly launch consoles of the PS4 and the One could easily outperform similarly priced computers. Sourcing separate CPUs and GPUs wasn’t fiscally reasonable, and combining that with the power requirement meant they had to go with a SOC. Wasn’t a lot of options out there at the time that could keep up with modern gaming. AMD had ok gpus but their CPUs were power hungry and underperformed. Intel had great CPUs but garbage GPUs. Nvidia had no real cpu but a good gpu. Both companies had to make compromises without resorting to doubling the price of the console or using a 500+watt power supplies. They ended up going with a jaguar based cpu instead of fx based chip, and a mid tiered GPU.

Sony cheaped out hard with that weak cpu in the PS4 after how much the CELL cost them both on the silicon and power consumption the previous gen. They're lucky XBox was run by a moron who thought he was going to sell his lame console to the grandmas who bought Wiis to watch Netflix.

[Ertman]

22 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Sony cheaped out hard with that weak cpu in the PS4 after how much the CELL cost them both on the silicon and power consumption the previous gen. They're lucky XBox was run by a moron who thought he was going to sell his lame console to the grandmas who bought Wiis to watch Netflix.

Nope. You can claim they cheaped out, but they didn’t. The PS3 was a lesson for Sony in what not to do, they weren’t going to subsidize each console by hundreds of dollars, combined with the limitation of potential hardware on the market at the time.

 

If you disagree, please provide a plausible alternative that meets the following criteria:

- needs to be a SoC

- needs to be inexpensive

- needs to meet approximate power consumption requirements

 

I think they could have gone with 2-4 cores using piledriver architecture instead but it was less efficient. Keep in mind the GPU might then be limited.

[SteveGrabowski0]

22 minutes ago, Ertman said:

Nope. You can claim they cheaped out, but they didn’t. The PS3 was a lesson for Sony in what not to do, they weren’t going to subsidize each console by hundreds of dollars, combined with the limitation of potential hardware on the market at the time.

 

If you disagree, please provide a plausible alternative that meets the following criteria:

- needs to be a SoC

- needs to be inexpensive

- needs to meet approximate power consumption requirements

 

I think they could have gone with 2-4 cores using piledriver architecture instead but it was less efficient. Keep in mind the GPU might then be limited.

They took a loss this gen and put a real cpu and much stronger gpu for the period while upping the power budget 50 watts from OG PS4.

[Ertman]

13 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

They took a loss this gen and put a real cpu and much stronger gpu for the period while upping the power budget 50 watts from OG PS4.

Right, but that was because of them trying to hit price point as component prices were increasing, and we are still talking around $50 range. So they are spending $60-80 more on the console but are receiving a very large bump in comparable specs. This sounds like they benefitted from a more competitive PC space than investment into components themselves. If it weren't during a supply shortage the costs would be even closer.

 

AMD developing Ryzen was a difference maker, along with releasing competitive performing gpus, with both components being relatively efficient. And let's not forget increasing the power budget.

 

So your main argument is that they didn't cheap out because better parts were available at similar prices. I am not seeing the logic there.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, Ertman said:

Right, but that was because of them trying to hit price point as component prices were increasing, and we are still talking around $50 range. So they are spending $60-80 more on the console but are receiving a very large bump in comparable specs. This sounds like they benefitted from a more competitive PC space than investment into components themselves. If it weren't during a supply shortage the costs would be even closer.

 

AMD developing Ryzen was a difference maker, along with releasing competitive performing gpus, with both components being relatively efficient. And let's not forget increasing the power budget.

 

So your main argument is that they didn't cheap out because better parts were available at similar prices. I am not seeing the logic there.

They could have increased the power budget last gen and put a halfway competent cpu instead of something that clocked at 1.6GHz but they cheaped out.